By Lisa Seachrist

Washington Editor

WASHINGTON — On a mixed voice vote, the House Science Committee supported H.R. 922 — The Human Cloning Research Prohibition Act. The bill, which prohibits federal funding of cloning research, now enters the Commerce Committee for consideration before it can reach the House floor for a vote.

While the committee reported the bill, it is unclear how much support the legislation, which was sponsored by Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), actually has. A conflict with a White House celebration for the balanced budget agreement meant that all but two of the committee's Democrats were missing when the issue came to a vote.

In addition, Rep. Constance Morella (R-Md.), chair of the Subcommittee on Technology, which held three hearings on the issue of cloning, failed to support the bill because she was concerned that it would inadvertently ban legitimate research.

"While I commend my good friend from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, for his sincere efforts to ban the federal funding of human cloning research while protecting scientific development, and I appreciate the courtesies he has extended to me in his efforts to reach an agreement with the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and biomedical research organizations," Morella said, "I regret that I cannot support this bill."

H.R. 922 states that federal funds may not be used to conduct or support any research that includes the use of human somatic cell nuclear transfer technology to produce an embryo. The ban is permanent, requiring the National Research Council to report back to Congress the impact the act has had on research and recommend any appropriate changes.

Chuck Ludlam, vice president for government relations at the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), noted that as worded, H.R. 922 embodies several legislative pitfalls. For one, Ehlers defines a somatic cell as a cell which "is not or will not become a sperm or egg cell."

"This bill asks scientists to determine something that may actually be impossible to determine," Ludlam said.

In addition, Ehlers' focus on banning the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer "to produce an embryo" opens the window to a variety of definitions. Because it may be possible to take any somatic cell and reprogram it to create an embryo, it is possible to consider all somatic cells potential embryos.

If the language is read to mean "could" produce an embryo, it could prohibit a broad class of biomedical research.

"Ehlers' bill looks more like a human embryo research bill than a cloning bill," Ludlam said. "He is going off in an entirely different direction than the one recommended by the [National Bioethics Advisory Commission]."

The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) recommended in June that Congress and the Administration enact legislation that would ban the federal funding of creation of a human using somatic cell nuclear transfer technology. NBAC specifically chose not to address the issue of human embryo research, noting the current bans on such research written into the Health and Human Services appropriations legislation.

Rep. Lynn Rivers (D-Mich.) offered amendments to substitute NBAC definitions into Ehlers' bill, add a sunset clause to the bill and provide a definition of research activities that would be protected.

Ehlers, however, noted that he had worked with industry and biomedical research organizations on the specific definition and decided that "it is important to respond not just to industry concerns, but to those of the wider society."

Ehlers did, however, agree to work with Rivers on inserting language that would define permissible research.

"To be perfectly clear, we would not endorse the bill even if the Rivers' amendments had been approved," Ludlam said. "We remain skeptical of the need for a legislative ban."

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) also voiced skepticism about the need for a legislative ban, noting that the hearings on cloning produced near consensus that human embryo research was adequately addressed, that the president's moratorium was working, and that "this is a very important issue [but] there is not unanimity in how we should proceed."

Ludlam noted that while H.R. 922 only dealt with federally funded research, once the bill hits the Commerce Committee it could be expanded to include private research. In addition, the ban could be written into the appropriations bill.

"This ban could show up in a number of places," Ludlam said. "It is difficult legislation to write and any imprecision could be quite damaging to biomedical research." *